Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8149815" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is exactly right.This is a strength of Adventure Paths.  Designers can literally design and engineer the play paradigm such that it is formatted as an expression of sequential gamestates (exactly as you've done here).  And the GM, when reading it, can absorb it exactly that way.The problem is that this layout (prescripting play as sequential gamestates) simultaneously serves to (a) incentivize GMs to use Force if play doesn't proceed down that designed sequence which (b) fundamentally subverts players' input into play, which, if allowed to propel play authentically, (c) would invariably lead to an emergent sequence of gamestates that diverges from the designer's plan and (d) a different climax and denouement (rather than the phenomena discussed earlier where all of these groups were "somehow" instantiating the exact same climactic battle at the end of the AP!).This cuts right back to the initiating post and the premise for the thread (and things I've said many many times); "Prep can make slaves of GMs to their pre generated content (be it AP that they've spent money on and time/effort assimilating or their own settings/metaplot/creations) due to the incentive structure alignment."</blockquote>